In the field of ecoethics, in addition to names such as Kohák, Vavroušek, Keller, and Librová, we are increasingly encountering the name of a Czech philosopher, Professor Josef Šmajs. In his works, Professor Šmajs presents an entirely new, original, and comprehensive view of human life on Earth and its ethics. His concept combines the humanities and natural sciences into a single organic whole. Šmajs declares: “We are the products of a magnificent natural evolution, but we are proud only of our cultural creativity. We think – and we teach it in schools – that we complete humanity with human culture and humanize it. However, the truth is different. Nature is original, self-sufficient, and perfect; we cannot complete or humanize it.” He further claims that “If we want to survive on Earth, we must wisely give way to nature wisely in time. The epoch of the symbiosis of culture and nature is still ahead of us.” His philosophy, which can be called biophilic, interprets the current form of the ecological crisis and its causes and provides a clear, realistic guide to saving humanity and life on earth in ethical manner.

Introduction. Suicidal behaviour is a major public-health concern shaped by interacting psychological, interpersonal, social, cultural, and existential factors. Explanations based solely on psychiatric diagnosis or a single adverse event fail to capture the pathways from distress to suicidal ideation and from ideation to action.Aim. This narrative review synthesises selected psychological, psychodynamic, existential, and sociological approaches to suicidal behaviour, identifies clinically relevant protective factors, and examines the bioethical tension between suicide prevention and socially legitimised forms of assisted dying.Materials and methods. A focused narrative search of peer-reviewed literature and citation contexts was conducted and updated in July 2026. Searches addressed the main psychological, interpersonal, social, protective, and end-of-life concepts considered in the review. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, recent empirical studies, official statistics, and seminal theoretical works were prioritised. Evidence was synthesised thematically without quantitative pooling.Results. Psychological pain, hopelessness, burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, defeat, and entrapment are important but non-specific correlates of suicidal ideation. Additional volitional factors influence progression to action. Narcissistic vulnerability may increase risk when shame, humiliation, affective dysregulation, and interpersonal rupture converge. Meaning, social support, treatment, physical activity, and some forms of spiritual engagement may be protective, but their effects are context-dependent. Assisted-dying practices must be distinguished by agency, intention, capacity, clinical indication, and safeguards.Conclusions. Effective prevention requires coordinated clinical, relational, and population-level responses that reduce psychological pain, restore connection and realistic hope, and strengthen accessible mental-health, social, and palliative care. End-of-life policy should preserve conceptual clarity and monitor the effects of changing eligibility criteria without replacing empirical scrutiny with either alarmist or dismissive rhetoric.

This text will deal with the issue of the benefit of biodiversity in the polemic context of the works of Czech and Central European philosophers and environmentalists with the essential ideas of selected world thinkers and with environmental practice in Central Europe. To validate this thesis, the authors of this work chose an essay dealing with professional monographs and professional articles on this topic, focusing on the continuity of ideas of the authors of the Central European region. For the comparison, forestry was used as an exemplary major field. Based on the article, the premise can be accepted that the benefit of biodiversity appears as a basic assumption, thesis, or paradigm. We need a new definition of life that is not limited to carbon-based organisms. Humankind does not live in harmony with nature but uses its culture to deplete natural resources in the false belief that man is no longer a part of nature. Environmentalists and philosophers agree on the need for a turnaround to save the environment, maintaining, biodiversity, and life on Earth. But the predatory paradigm of culture may appear to be a temporary condition and perhaps even necessary to cope with that turn. The effort to preserve biodiversity is related to the effort to preserve the life of the human species. Popularization, or environmental education, leading to biodiversity preservation and development and sustainability of life on Earth should coincide from above and below. Therefore, it could be stated that biodiversity (not only the macroscopic one) is beneficial to sustain life as we know it now. Niniejszy artykuł podejmuje problematykę korzyści płynących z bioróżnorodności w kontekście polemiki zawartej w myśli czeskich i środkowoeuropejskich filozofów i ekologów z kluczowymi ideami wybranych myślicieli światowych oraz z praktyką ekologiczną w Europie Środkowej. Na potwierdzenie postawionej tezy, autorzy niniejszej pracy wybrali jako formę esej poświęcony monografiom i artykułom na ten temat, skupiając się na zbieżności idei autorów regionu środkowoeuropejskiego. Na potrzeby porównania jako przykładową dziedzinę główną przyjęto leśnictwo. Na podstawie artykułu można przyjąć przesłankę, że korzyści płynące z bioróżnorodności są przedstawiane jako podstawowe założenie, teza czy paradygmat. Wydaje się, że potrzebna jest tutaj nowa definicja życia, która nie ogranicza się do organizmów opartych na węglu. Ludzkość nie żyje w harmonii z naturą, lecz wykorzystuje swoją kulturę do wyczerpywania zasobów naturalnych w fałszywym przekonaniu, że człowiek nie jest już częścią natury. Ekolodzy i filozofowie zgadzają się co do potrzeby dokonania przewrotu, który pomógłby uratować środowisko, zachować bioróżnorodność i życie na Ziemi. Jednak drapieżny paradygmat kultury może wydawać się stanem przejściowym i być może nawet niezbędnym w procesie radzenia sobie z takim zwrotem. Wysiłek na rzecz zachowania bioróżnorodności jest powiązany z wysiłkiem na rzecz zachowania życia gatunku ludzkiego. Popularyzacja, czyli edukacja środowiskowa, prowadząca do zachowania bioróżnorodności oraz działania na rzecz rozwoju, czy te ukierunkowane na zachowania życia na Ziemi powinny być ze sobą zbieżne. Można zatem stwierdzić, że bioróżnorodność (nie tylko makroskopowa) sprzyja podtrzymaniu życia, jakie jest nam znane obecnie.

The article examines human dignity as a fundamental category of Christian anthropology and its role as a basis for sustainable development. It highlights the continuity of the Church’s teaching on the inseparability of human dignity, justice, and solidarity, and interprets them in the context of current social and ecological challenges. Methodologically, the study applies a conceptual and theological analysis of magisterial documents (from Leo XIII to Francis), complemented by the relevant secondary literature in the fields of theology, philosophy, and ethics. The results show that human dignity is not only a theological concept but also a practical criterion for shaping social, economic, and environmental policies aimed at sustainability. The discussion emphasizes the interdisciplinary potential of human dignity to serve as a bridge between religious and secular discourses on sustainable development. The study concludes that integrating the principle of human dignity into the sustainability agenda provides a stable anthropological foundation and strengthens the ethical dimension of global responsibility.

Air pollution represents one of the most significant environmental determinants of public health in modern industrial societies. High concentrations of pollutants generated by the combustion of fossil fuels have long been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the population. The European Union’s primary and common tool for environmental protection is the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). However, its implementation and application raise serious ethical dilemmas regarding the interrelationships between human responsibility for the environment, well-being, and the health of the population. The authors of this article have reflected on these dilemmas and set a research objective: to examine the current state of affairs and identify the best possible solutions. After conducting research and a qualitative analysis of expert sources relevant to the topic, the authors reflect on the connections between emissions allowances, the health of the population, and the need for fair distribution and protection of the economically vulnerable segment of the EU population. The qualitative analysis conducted demonstrates a direct link between the introduction of emission allowances and improvements in public health, alongside the need to provide financial subsidies to economically vulnerable segments of the population, with the aim of eliminating adverse health consequences associated with poverty and threats to well-being. The ethical debate on emissions trading systems can be simply interpreted as a tension between two fundamental normative principles of public policy: the principle of harm prevention and the principle of distributive justice.